Viewpoint |
AI vs Natural Intelligence…. and the Winner Is?

Who and what will ultimately control the future proliferation of AI technology? Among other uses, the utilization of AI for fraudulent activities and purposes will undoubtably increase.

by John Mishler

Should Americans really be so concerned about Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Yes. Why? Physicist Frank Wilczek provides us with a straightforward observation on why….”What worries me is not so much Artificial Intelligence but natural stupidity.” So, AI appears less harmful than natural stupidity; however, should it be “feared" more when compared to natural intelligence (i.e., critical thinking)? The question, therefore, is?

AI versus natural intelligence…… presents both a challenge and a dilemma for all Americans. What should we honestly be asking ourselves? Would it be more efficient and convenient to have hand-held/laptop electronic devices providing us with all the knowledge required at a moments notice, or would it be more prudent for personal development and survival to “think” on our own? And the winner is?

It is certainly not natural stupidity, but is it critical thinking? In our daily lives, is it so cumbersome to think on our own? Probably, because thinking challenges …..”one to go outside the box, connect the dots, study, ask relevant questions, possess doubts, rely on verifiable facts, be curious, have discussions with others, problem-solve, prognosticate, evaluate, utilize common sense - all of these tasks require time and dedication....” (“Trump: King of the Unthinking,” Storm Lake Times Pilot, October 24, 2025).

If we find critical thinking so difficult, would AI solve this everyday nuisance? Would AI really be so negative? Yes and no, but what are the real costs, known and unknown, of AI on our present and, mostly importantly, future society?

With AI, there will be a continual restructuring of the workforce with the subsequent loss of employment for thousands of skilled workers. Using AI, how movies are produced and the manner in which books, plays, and artworks are created will be significantly altered. Utilizing AI-generated chatbots, young adolescents are already experiencing an increase in mental health issues caused by such devices.

The vulnerability, and probability, that AI data centers will be exposed to attacks by foreign-government supported hackers deserves special attention and remediation. In addition, the utilization of AI for fraudulent activities and purposes will undoubtably increase.

For communities where AI centers will be located, the tremendous amount of energy required to sustain these data centers, and the water required to cool said facilities, will be detrimental to them, thereby, increasing local energy costs. A novel alternative under active consideration, however, to overcome this land-based issue, is the viability of employing “orbital AI data centers” in space, where the energy from the sun could be harnessed to operate such entities. In the future, utmost consideration must also be given to how climate change/global warming will effect the operation of land-based centers under conditions of prolonged drought and/or high sustained temperatures/humidity, and whether or not orbital AI data centers are indeed feasible.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, what catastrophic consequences will be experienced by the business, banking, and governmental communities if or when the AI “bubble” bursts?

As Americans witness the rather rapid utilization of the various functions of AI noted above, who and what will ultimately control the future proliferation of such technology? Will each state apply its own authority to legislate/restrict how AI applications maybe utilized, or will final overall control be exerted by federal regulations alone? With respect to who presently controls AI, it appears the conflict between states and the federal government has already begun. Recently, Mr. Trump …”signed an executive order setting up an ‘AI Litigation Task Force’ to challenge state laws on artificial intelligence that the administration considers overly burdensome.” (Trump vs. states: Who gets to regulate AI? The Week, December 26, 2025). Whether or not this current presidential executive order is constitutionally valid, purposeful consideration must be given to fully understanding the complete ramifications of AI on the future of all American citizens exposed to this technology.

In the end, Americans and their lawmakers should carefully consider whether the advantages of AI outweigh the risks such technology may have on the future of our ability to process complex subjects on our own, without the need for a system which will do all the thinking for us. Ergo Americans, the winner is and should always be…….to cultivate natural intelligence, whatever the cost. However, whether AI can be employed to safely supplement, but not be a substitute for, and thus enhance our natural intelligence in a controlled and meaningful manner, is the next “real” question to be fully examined and, thereafter, thoughtfully debated.

About the author ~

John M. Mishler was a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Harpswell, Maine.

TAGS:

Viewpoint |
Trump's racism can no longer be tolerated

When confronted with criticism, Trump does not respond with restraint or humility. He responds with provocation, grievance, and racial dehumanization. His latest act crossed an unforgivable line.

by Van Abbott

On the night of February 5, 2026, President Donald Trump used his social media platform to circulate a grotesque video that ended by depicting former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as primates. The image invoked one of the oldest and most dehumanizing racist tropes in American history. Its meaning was unmistakable. Coming from a sitting president, it represented a moral breach that demanded immediate repudiation.

Instead, when questioned the following morning, Trump said he had reviewed the post but not in its entirety and deemed it acceptable. If true, that explanation suggests negligence unworthy of the office. If untrue, it suggests something worse. The public is deserving to know who prepared the post, and why was it allowed to remain online for twelve hours? Why did no senior aide accept responsibility for a mistake that, in any functioning administration, would end a career? The absence of accountability speaks for itself.

Many Republicans will insist they are not racist, and many sincerely believe it.

Only after sustained public backlash was the post removed. Trump then reversed course, he strongly condemned the image, claimed once again he had not seen the offensive ending, blamed his staff, and still offered no apology. Delay, deflection, and evasion remain his standard responses to moral failure.

This episode fits a long-established pattern. When confronted with criticism, Trump does not respond with restraint or humility. He responds with provocation, grievance, and racial dehumanization.

Many Republicans will insist they are not racist, and many sincerely believe it. Yet millions continue to support the most racially divisive president in modern American history. They excuse the language, minimize the imagery, and rationalize the behavior as strategy or humor. Racism does not require confession. It survives through tolerance, advances through silence, and hardens through justification.

For more than six decades, the United States has struggled toward a broader understanding of equality. Progress has been uneven but real. Through law, protest, and sacrifice, Americans learned that citizenship is not defined by skin color, humanity is not assigned by race, and dignity is not granted by power. That understanding was meant to prevent leaders from reviving the language of dehumanization drawn from the nation’s darkest chapters.

Trump’s record on race long predates his presidency. His father was accused by the federal government of discriminatory housing practices, and Trump carried that legacy forward. In 1989, he purchased full-page newspaper advertisements calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, five Black and Latino teenagers later proven innocent. Even after their exoneration, he refused to acknowledge the injustice. He later promoted the false claim that the nation’s first Black president was not a legitimate American, described immigrants from nonwhite countries in degrading terms, amplified white nationalist voices, and told elected officials of color to go back where they came from. These were not isolated incidents but a consistent narrative of exclusion and resentment.

Anti-Black racism carried a uniquely dehumanizing weight rooted in American history.

That narrative intensified during his first term and beyond. Racism became a political instrument, used to energize supporters and define enemies. Trump did not merely tolerate racist language. He normalized it and placed it at the center of his political identity.

His staffing decisions reinforced that message. Senior positions were filled for loyalty rather than competence. Officials of color who asserted independence were sidelined or dismissed. Expertise was treated as disloyalty, integrity as opposition, and public service as expendable.

Immigrants and refugees were targeted with particular cruelty, and enforcement favored spectacle over justice. Yet anti-Black racism carried a uniquely dehumanizing weight rooted in American history. The primate image aimed at the Obamas drew directly from that lineage. It was not careless. It was calculated.

At moments of national testing, leaders are judged less by what they provoke than by what they refuse to do. Trump refuses restraint, decency, and accountability. He chooses cruelty over character and division over duty.

This should be the breaking point for Republicans and for Christians who have persuaded themselves that policy outcomes excuse conduct. Faith that tolerates dehumanization is faith emptied of meaning. Patriotism that excuses racism is patriotism stripped of honor. Silence in the face of bigotry is not neutrality. It is permission.

The choice before voters is neither partisan nor abstract. You do not have to abandon conservatism to reject racism. You do not have to embrace every Democratic position to defend democracy. In 2026 and again in 2028, Americans must choose decency over degradation, conscience over comfort, and the rule of law over cult loyalty. History will record who answered that call and who looked away.

About the author ~

Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.

TAGS:

Viewpoint |
Treating parents as sacred: A moral foundation worth preserving

Honoring parents as sacred is not about worship, fear, or unquestioning submission. Critics often worry that reverence discourages independent thinking.

by Souvik Das
Guest Viewpoint

In many households, parents are often described—sometimes affectionately, sometimes with deep seriousness—as “next to God”. For generations, this idea has shaped family life, moral learning, and the way children relate to authority. Today, however, such thinking is increasingly criticized. Treating parents as sacred or godlike figures, critics argue, promotes blind obedience, discourages questioning, and obstructs individual autonomy. But is this criticism entirely fair?

At its best, regarding parents as sacred is not about worship, fear, or unquestioning submission. It is about moral orientation—the earliest framework through which a child learns humility, gratitude, restraint, and respect, long before abstract ideas of rights or autonomy make sense. Understood symbolically rather than literally, parental reverence plays a quiet but powerful role in shaping character.

Children are not born morally autonomous. They begin their life dependent—emotionally, physically, and morally. In these early years, treating parents as figures deserving special respect creates a stable moral framework. It teaches children that their impulses are not always supreme, that others matter, and that patience and self-control are virtues worth cultivating. These lessons are not signs of weakness; they are foundations of emotional strength and social responsibility.

Critics often worry that reverence discourages independent thinking. In reality, moral autonomy does not appear overnight. It grows gradually from discipline, emotional regulation, and respect for limits. A child who has learned calmness and gratitude is far better equipped to question responsibly later than one who has been encouraged to challenge everything from the start. Independence without inner discipline often leads not to freedom, but to restlessness, anxiety, and conflict.

Importantly, treating parents as sacred does not mean believing they are infallible. Parents can make mistakes. They can be inconsistent, unfair, or wrong. Reverence, when healthy, does not deny this. It simply delays judgment until the child is mature enough to understand complexity. Just as we do not expect children to independently evaluate laws or institutions, it is unreasonable to expect them to morally audit their parents from the very beginning.

There are, of course, limitations. Criminality, abuse, neglect, and exploitation destroy the moral foundation of parental authority. In such cases, reverence is not only unnecessary but harmful. Acknowledging these exceptions, however, does not invalidate the general value of parental respect in ordinary families. Moral principles are judged by how they function in typical circumstances, not by their breakdown in extreme ones.

Setting aside these exceptional cases, parental reverence in everyday family life should remain the default human moral culture. In ordinary, well-intentioned parenting, such reverence fosters calmness, emotional stability, and steady improvement in life. It reduces unnecessary moral friction within the household and creates an environment in which children can flourish—learning discipline and gratitude first, and independence later.

In an age marked by impatience, anxiety, and constant moral confrontation, we should ask what kind of upbringing helps children grow into calm, responsible, and socially productive adults. Symbolic reverence toward parents provides clear boundaries and emotional security, freeing a child’s energy for learning, creativity, and cooperation rather than constant resistance.

Treating parents as sacred is not about returning to blind tradition or silencing children’s voices. It is about recognizing a simple moral truth: before autonomy can flourish, stability must exist. Before critique, there must be character. And before independence, there must be respect. Perhaps the real question, then, is not whether this idea is outdated—but whether we have been too quick to abandon a moral foundation that quietly worked.

Souvik Das is a Senior Research Fellow (SRF) in the Department of Physics at Tezpur University. He writes occasionally on social and ethical issues in a personal capacity.

Viewpoint |
When history is denied, democracy is put on trial

President Trump claimed these violent felons did not attack anyone after issuing a blanket pardon to Daniel Rodriguez and others after the attack of Michael Fanone.

by Terry Hansen
Guest Commentary

Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw the investigation into President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, recently testified publicly for the first time before the House Judiciary Committee.

Committee member Joe Neguse (D-CO) warned: "Mr. Smith...Republicans are trying to rewrite history. ... Perhaps the Chairman could muster the courage to call the four witnesses who I see...standing behind you, Mr. Smith. The four police officers who risked everything, life and limb...to protect the Republican members on the dais."

Former D.C. police officer Michael Fanone was one of those protectors present in the hearing room. On January 6, 2021, Daniel Rodriguez repeatedly drove a stun gun into Fanone's skull, causing him to lose consciousness and suffer a heart attack. Rodriguez was sentenced to over 12 years in prison. The judge called him “a one-man army of hate."

After issuing his blanket pardon of Rodriguez and his fellow cop-beaters, President Trump claimed these violent felons did not attack anyone, and that, in fact, they were the ones who had been attacked. He further stated that pardoning them was "a great thing for humanity."

Timothy Snyder, author of On Tyranny, argues that democracy cannot exist without history because it depends on citizens who can recognize patterns from the past, accept responsibility for what their nation has done, and choose better paths for the future.

Today, we are watching the Trump administration distort the facts surrounding the fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Renée Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. Border Patrol agents. This revisionism isn’t just cynical—it’s dangerous. When politicians deny what happened in plain sight, they erode the public’s ability to tell truth from propaganda.

And when the truth is lost, so is our capacity to hold power to account.

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

TAGS:

Viewpoint |
How ICE raids on homes violates the constitutional rights

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents are using aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign.

by John E. Jones III
Dickinson College

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo – acquired via a whistleblower – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant. That policy, the report said, constituted “a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.”

Those limits have long been found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.

Okay, I’m going to read the Fourth Amendment – and then you’re going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Can you help us understand what that means?

Since the beginning of the republic, it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone’s home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.

In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.

What I see in this directive that ICE put out, apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.

What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?

In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person’s home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king could invade people’s homes at will. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.

So it’s essentially a protection against abuse of the government’s power.

That’s precisely what it is.

Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?

It hasn’t. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, didn’t envision that there would be cellphones. They couldn’t understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. All those modalities have come into the sphere of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging, simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person’s home.

ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?

It’s absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That’s all. It’s a piece of paper that says ‘We want you arrested because we said so.’ At bottom that’s what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn’t been approved by a judge.

This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.

A judicially approved warrant, on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone’s residence to arrest them.

So the key distinction is that there’s a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there’s sufficient cause to – as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment – be empowered to enter someone’s home. An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.

ICE agents continued raids in Minnesota on Jan. 18, 2026, pulling a man who was wearing only underwear and a blanket out of a house in St. Paul.

Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?

There are a few, such as consent searches and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it’s really the opposite and cases point to greater protections. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, the court found that intrusion was not necessary and that people’s expectation of privacy included their phone conversations. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.

What’s the direction this could go in at this point?

What I fear here – and I think ICE probably knows this – is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you’ve apprehended the person. So I’m struggling to figure out how you remedy this.

About the author:

John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College. He is also affiliated with Keep Our Republic’s Article Three Coalition.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Viewpoint |
Trump's costly deportation policy producing unwhelming results

Photo: Chad Stembridge/Unsplash

ICE’s stated enforcement goals with publicly available data, highlights the agency’s increasingly militarized presence in urban neighborhoods, and documents the erosion of due process protections.

by Van Abbott

A budget tells a story. It reveals priorities, exposes intentions, and signals how power will be used. The newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story that should alarm anyone who values fiscal integrity, constitutional limits, and democratic accountability.

In fiscal year 2024, ICE operated on a budget of roughly 10 billion dollars. Under the 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill,” the agency retained that base while receiving an additional 75 billion dollars in multiyear enforcement funding, available over approximately four years. Even if those supplemental funds are spread evenly, ICE now commands effective spending power of about 29 billion dollars annually. This is not an incremental increase. It is a structural transformation. An agency once described as a targeted enforcement body now wields resources approaching those of a national security institution, with little explanation and even less oversight.

The administration insists this surge in funding is about deportation. The observable outcomes suggest otherwise.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, a forced deportation costs approximately 18,000 dollars per person. By contrast, self deportation through the CBP Home app, including airfare, processing, and a cash stipend, costs about 5,100 dollars.

United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment.

Using limited and unaudited publicly available data, ICE appears to have conducted roughly 300,000 to 330,000 formal forced removals over the past twelve months. In the final Biden administration fiscal year, ICE conducted approximately 271,000 forced removals. Even using the highest current estimate of 330,000, the increase amounts to about 59,000 removals, or roughly 22 percent.

Given the intensity of MAGA rhetoric and the extraordinary budgetary expansion directed at illegal immigration, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations during the first year of Trump’s return to office. That has not occurred.

This disparity raises a fundamental question. Are taxpayers funding effective immigration enforcement, or underwriting a vastly expanded apparatus whose mission now extends far beyond its original purpose? When spending multiplies while outcomes stagnate, and budgets swell while transparency shrinks, skepticism is not partisan. It is prudent.

What makes this moment especially troubling is how ICE now operates inside American cities. In Minneapolis and other urban centers, the agency has effectively occupied neighborhoods through sustained deployments, visible patrols, coordinated raids, and multiple deadly shootings. These actions resemble federal policing campaigns more than immigration enforcement. Streets are saturated with armed agents. Communities report a constant presence. The message is unmistakable. This is not about processing cases. It is about asserting control.

Alongside this urban expansion has come a collapse of constitutional safeguards. Masked agents conduct operations without visible identification. Homes are entered without warrants. Traffic stops occur without clear cause or authority. United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment. To date, there is no public record of ICE officers being meaningfully disciplined for these actions. Authority expands. Accountability disappears. Due process erodes.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect an institutional posture increasingly untethered from the rule of law. When agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences, the result is not enforcement but intimidation. The Constitution does not yield to expediency. Rights do not evaporate because an agency is well funded.

$85 billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem.

The human cost is substantial. Raids executed with overwhelming force to apprehend nonviolent individuals traumatize families and destabilize neighborhoods. Faulty intelligence leads to mistaken targets, emotional harm, and property damage that is rarely reimbursed. Children watch parents taken away. Citizens discover that documentation offers no protection when an unaccountable force decides otherwise. Fear becomes routine. Trust becomes impossible.

The budget surge demands a more candid interpretation. A force that is lavishly funded, lightly supervised, and aggressively deployed within cities begins to resemble a national police force rather than an immigration service. It arrests without warrants, detains without explanation, and occupies neighborhoods without consent. It answers upward to executive authority, not outward to the public.

Three questions deserve direct answers. What problem justified a nearly threefold increase in annual spending power? Why do expenditures so dramatically exceed measurable outcomes? Who benefits from an enforcement body that grows more powerful as it grows less accountable?

Democracies rarely fail all at once. They erode through normalized excess, tolerated abuse, and unchecked authority. When budgets explode, rights contract, and accountability vanishes, the warning signs are unmistakable. Eighty five billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem. It is a governance crisis.

About the author ~

TAGS: newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations, how ICE now operates inside American cities, agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences

Viewpoint |
October 7

Yumna Zahid Ali challenges the narrative that Oct. 7 marks the start of the Gaza conflict. It details a continuous timeline of control, siege, and violence dating back to 1948.

by Yumna Zahid Ali, Guest Commentator

The war did not begin on October 7, 2023, no matter how loudly that date is repeated to erase the long history of occupation and conflict that came before it. October 7 is used as a license to forget, a convenient starting line that allows seventy-five years of dispossession, occupation, siege, and repeated military assaults to be reduced to historical ash. But the testimonies of the oppressed do not work that way.

Wars do not begin when the powerful decide to start counting; they begin when people are uprooted from their land, dignity, safety, and any right to futurity, and Gaza’s story begins in 1948, not in 2023.

In 1948, during what Palestinians call Al-Nakba, or “The Catastrophe,” the creation of the State of Israel came with the forced displacement of at least 750,000 Palestinians from their ancestral land. Entire villages were cleared, homes demolished or seized, and families sent into exile under the illusion that it was only for a short time. It was not. Those refugees were never allowed to return, and Gaza became one of the places where their descendants were compressed into a narrow strip of land where loss was perpetuated, not remembered. When Gaza is bombed today, it is not just a city under fire; it is a refugee camp built on an unresolved crime.

... a diplomatic solution over time revealed itself as management of the conflict rather than its resolution, breeding disillusionment instead of reconciliation.

In 1967, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip following the Six-Day War, placing its population under military rule and control. From that moment forward, Gaza’s residents did not control their borders, their airspace, or their freedom of movement. Daily life was regulated by an occupying power that could decide who traveled, who entered, who passed through a checkpoint, who received medicine, and who would have their name crossed out. This was not a temporary emergency measure; it was the normalization of domination, and it hardened a sense of injustice, not because Palestinians rejected peace, but because they were never offered freedom.

By 1987, that pressure escalated into the First Intifada, a mass uprising driven largely by civilians who used protests, strikes, and civil disobedience to confront decades of occupation. It was not an armed invasion but a civilian-led revolt born from humiliation and dehumanization, and it was met with ferocious military force, mass arrests, beatings, and live ammunition. This was the state screaming its only truth: “We have the guns. Your justice is a fantasy. Obey.”

The 1990s brought the Oslo Accords, which were sold to the world as a peace process but felt to many Palestinians like an agreement to keep talking about…an agreement that would never come. While a Palestinian Authority was created, real sovereignty never followed, and Israel retained decisive control over borders, armed enforcement, and colonization. Settlement expansion continued in the West Bank, occupation remained intact, and Gaza was targeted for further degradation. What was presented as a diplomatic solution over time revealed itself as management of the conflict rather than its resolution, breeding disillusionment instead of reconciliation.

In 2005, Israel announced its unilateral “disengagement” from Gaza, withdrawing settlers and soldiers from inside the strip while keeping its chokehold over its airspace, territorial waters, population registry, and all land crossings. Gaza was not freed; it was sealed. Its people could not move, trade, or rebuild freely, and the territory became dependent on an occupying power that claimed it was no longer responsible while still maintaining a remote-controlled siege. This contradiction was the catalyst for what followed.

This was not an accidental escalation. It was a one-sided, deeply imbalanced war.

When Hamas won Palestinian elections in 2006, Gaza was placed under a strangling blockade by Israel, with Egypt’s cooperation and Western backing. This was not a counter-terrorism operation; it was collective punishment imposed on over two million people, most of them civilians, many of them children still in diapers. The blockade crippled Gaza’s economy, restricted food, medicine, fuel, and construction materials, and trapped every last soul in a sealed enclosure. Despair deepened, and the world largely accepted it as necessary.

What followed were repeated military assaults that reinforced the reality of Gaza as a place where civilian life was expendable. In 2008–2009, Operation Cast Lead killed around 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of children, while Israel lost 13 people, several from friendly fire. In 2012, Operation Pillar of Defense left 167 Palestinians dead in just eight days. In 2014, Operation Protective Edge devastated Gaza over 51 days, killing more than 2,200 Palestinians, over 500 of them children, and flattening densely populated city quarters while Gaza remained shrink-wrapped and unable to shelter its people. Each assault cycled back to the same four words: ceasefire, rubble, blockade, trauma.

In 2018, Palestinians attempted a different form of resistance through the Great March of Return, where largely unarmed protesters demanded an end to the blockade and the restitution of their right of return to the homes dispossessed in 1948. They were quelled with sniper fire. Over 200 were killed, thousands were wounded, many were permanently disabled, and dozens of children were brutalized by bullets. Even the protest was treated as a threat to be eliminated rather than an appeal for humanity to be heeded.

The punitive pattern continued through May 2021 and August 2022, with further Israeli operations killing hundreds more Palestinians, including many children, while Gaza remained stranded, impoverished, and futureless. This was not an accidental escalation. It was a one-sided, deeply imbalanced war. One side owns the prison and writes the news. The other digs graves and waits to be bombed again.

To claim that the war began on October 7, 2023, is not an act of providing a complete picture; it is an act of distortion and falsification. It erases the refugee camps, the occupation, the blockade, the bombings, the crushed protests, and a childhood defined by sirens. It reframes history so that violence appears spontaneous rather than inevitable, detached rather than provoked. October 7 represents a critical node in a continuous historical sequence…one that begins not in 2023, but in 1948, with the foundational injustices that have defined the conflict ever since.

“You cannot bury seventy-five years of suffering under one date and then call it honesty.”

About the author ~

Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.

TAGS: Gaza war historical context, why Gaza conflict did not start October 7, Gaza history since 1948 opinion, Israel Palestine conflict long-term analysis, Gaza blockade and occupation explained

Guest Commentary |
In times of conflict, focus on faith, community, and daily life

The op-ed calls for continued prayer and support for national leaders, regardless of agreement or disagreement with their actions. Glenn Mollette stresses that leadership often needs encouragement most during moments of disagreement.

by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator

The best we can do right now is the best we can do.

We can be influencers and voices to those who help and serve us. However, we don’t control the government. We can vote and that is powerful. We can let our leadership know how we feel and that is never a waste of time. We can make our contributions to causes that bring about change. We can volunteer in places that make a difference. After that, it’s up to those we elected. After we do and have done all we can do, we have to sit back and wait and watch to see what is going to happen. Sometimes we approve. Sometimes we don’t and sometimes we are unsure.

Hard working Americans of faith have made this country and will keep this country going.

In the middle of conflict and uncertainty, we should never cease to pray for our President and leaders of government. They need our prayers. They also need our support. They need it when we feel they are right and they need it when we believe they are wrong. Just because we believe leadership may be wrong doesn’t mean we withdraw our support. Usually when we feel they are wrong they need our support more but in a different way. That’s when we say, “I support you but you need to go at this in a different way.” Sometimes those who lead us listen and it seems like often they don’t pay any attention to us.

Glenn Mollette

In the middle of all that is going on in America and the world we need to be busy going about our lives as much as possible. We need to work our jobs, take care of our families, pay our bills, plant and raise our gardens and do life as best as we can. Our country and houses of faith are made up of everyday, hard-working Americans. Hard working Americans of faith have made this country and will keep this country going.

Too often we have albatrosses that are hung around our neck. We’ve had Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. They were financially crippling and killed thousands of our people. We don’t want any more of that insanity but we are wondering if we are bound and determined for more?

What will Venezuela bring to America? What are we getting ourselves into? What kind of blowback is coming our way? Are we going to plunge head first into Iran and their problems? Here we go again placing ourselves where we don’t need to be. Next, there is Greenland, Cuba and Mexico. Where will all this take us and cost us?

Let’s pray for Venezuela that they can get their act together and elect their own leadership. If we can help them with their oil and benefit both countries then that would be a win-win.

In the meantime, let’s do the good things we know to do. Our communities and towns need us to carry on, even when it seems like the world is trying to fall apart.

About the author ~

Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.

Viewpoint |
The GOP’s break with its conservative past

Public funds are acceptable when they glorify power. Fiscal conservatism has not been compromised. It has been discarded.

by Van Abbott

Monuments say more about power than rhetoric ever can. They harden priorities into stone and steel. Donald Trump’s proposed triumphal boulevard arch, advanced under the banner of celebrating America’s 250th anniversary, is not merely an aesthetic project. It is a public declaration that the Republican Party has severed itself from the conservative identity it once claimed and replaced it with spectacle, excess, and personal glorification.

For most of the twentieth century, Republican branding rested on restraint. The party presented itself as the steward of limited government, fiscal discipline, institutional continuity, and skepticism toward executive indulgence. From Eisenhower through Reagan, Republicans spoke of balanced budgets, federalism, and respect for civic inheritance. Even when they expanded federal power, they framed it as reluctant and bounded. Conservatism was defined not by grandeur but by limits, not by monuments but by moderation.

That identity has been steadily hollowed out, but Trump’s arch makes the transformation unmistakable. Republicans once criticized Democrats for symbolic excess and taxpayer funded vanity projects. Now the party’s dominant figure promotes a massive public monument whose purpose is neither national defense nor civic necessity, but legacy narcissistic creation. It inverts conservative logic. Government is no longer something to restrain. It is a branding instrument.

In imperial Russia, lavish displays of power coexisted with mass deprivation and political paralysis.

The problem is not commemoration. Many Americans welcome recognition of the nation’s 250th anniversary. The problem is appropriateness. At a moment when millions of Americans struggle with access to health care, food security, and affordable housing, the allocation of millions or potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to a monument that will almost certainly be named after Trump is not patriotic celebration. It is misaligned priority.

That symbolism deepens when viewed alongside other indulgences. Plans for a $400 million gold accented White House ballroom, gold leaf ornamentation throughout Whitehouse executive spaces, the destruction of historic elements of the Rose Garden, and a broader pattern of aesthetic excess reflect the same governing philosophy. Public funds are acceptable when they glorify power. This occurs while Republicans preside over some of the largest annual federal budget deficits in American history. Fiscal conservatism has not been compromised. It has been discarded.

History offers sobering parallels. In late stage France, monumental court spending continued even as bread shortages worsened. In imperial Russia, lavish displays of power coexisted with mass deprivation and political paralysis. In both cases, monuments were not symbols of confidence. They were warnings of elite detachment. Revolutions rarely begin with ideology alone. They begin when citizens conclude that those in power no longer inhabit the same reality.

Long after the speeches fade, the stone may whisper what the slogans never admitted.

That conclusion is increasingly visible in American political conversation, including among conservatives themselves. There is growing discussion about whether the Republican Party can survive in its current form. A party that embraces executive personalization, rejects fiscal restraint, and treats government as a vehicle for self celebration has vacated the philosophical ground it once occupied. Political vacuums do not remain empty.

It is plausible that a new party could emerge within the next decade, formed from disaffected conservatives, institutionalists, and independents seeking restraint without cruelty and order without authoritarianism. American realignments unfold gradually. They move through donor shifts, primary challenges, and regional coalitions before they become visible nationally. The collapse of the Whig Party in mid-1850s was not widely predicted until it was unavoidable. Similar dynamics may already be in motion.

Whether such transformation requires a revolution depends on definition. The United States is unlikely to experience violent overthrow. But revolutions can be electoral and institutional. When trust erodes, legitimacy fades, and consent weakens, political systems change even if their outward forms remain intact. That process does not announce itself. It accumulates.

Looking ahead ten years, stability is the least likely outcome. Fragmentation is far more plausible. If the Republican Party continues to equate power with pageantry and governance with self display, it risks becoming a personal vehicle rather than a durable institution. In that environment, a reconstituted conservative movement or an entirely new party becomes not radical but necessary.

If that future arrives, Trump’s triumphal arch may stand as a monument of exquisite irony. Built to proclaim national greatness, it may instead serve as the gateway marking the Republican Party’s exit from restraint and its embrace of spectacle. Long after the speeches fade, the stone may whisper what the slogans never admitted: a movement that once warned against excess decided that a very large, very expensive monument to itself was somehow conservative after all.

About the author ~

TAGS:

Viewpoint |
Milwaukee judge faces prison time in a case of judicial humanity

Leaked ICE data shows that 73 percent of people booked into ICE detention this fiscal year have no criminal convictions. Honoring the dignity of immigrants, including those without legal status, is an act of resistance.

by Terry Hansen
Guest Commentary

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has been convicted by a federal jury of felony obstruction for directing Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, toward a back exit when she learned Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were waiting in the building. If the conviction is upheld, Dugan faces up to five years in prison.

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign issued a coalition statement asserting that the conviction sets "a dangerous precedent," and that "This case was never about one individual. It was about whether people can still walk into a courthouse without fear and trust the justice system to protect them."

Notably, leaked ICE data analyzed by the Cato Institute show that 73 percent of people booked into ICE detention this fiscal year have no criminal convictions, nearly half lack even pending charges, and only 5 percent have violent convictions—contradicting claims of targeting “the worst of the worst.”

Legal scholar Samera Esmeir coined the term "juridical humanity," meaning the way law defines who counts as human. Esmeir describes the history of juridical humanity as a "tale about loss," including "the loss of the human to modern law, when the law laid claim to a monopoly over the power to declare the presence of the human."

Applied to Trump-era immigration policy and cases like Judge Dugan’s, it captures how people are rendered “human” only to the extent that they fit a legal status the state recognizes and values.

Current immigration practices embody this concept: threats of denaturalization against “disloyal” citizens and mass deportations to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison—often ignoring due process or torture allegations—relegate migrants to a downgraded humanity.

Law doesn’t just close borders; it manufactures lesser humans.

Congress’ failure to pass immigration reform helps entrench juridical humanity by freezing an outdated legal system and forcing battles over humanity into executive and judicial discretion, instead of democratic lawmaking.

Comprehensive reform has stalled for over two decades, leaving millions in precarious or “liminal” status—the undocumented, Dreamers (DACA), people with Temporary Protected Status, and long-term residents—whose basic life conditions depend on fragile, reversible policies rather than secure legal personhood.

In juridical humanity terms, Congress keeps in place a hierarchy where some people are fully recognized humans (citizens), while others are only partially recognized and can be detained, deported, or excluded with fewer protections because their legal status is unresolved or deliberately kept temporary.

Significantly, this past February, the White House posted a dehumanizing video on X of shackled and downcast detainees boarding airplanes, accompanied by the sounds of jangling chains and the revving of airplane engines. The post was titled "ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight."

ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) videos use visuals and sound to create a relaxing, tingling sensation that helps viewers de-stress. Elon Musk, then head of the Department of Government Efficiency, retweeted the post, writing “Haha wow,” along with emojis of a troll and a medal.

While the ideological façade of Trump's immigration policies is the protection of U.S. citizens, its goals clearly include humiliation and cruelty.

The Declaration of Independence is prominently displayed behind President Trump’s Oval Office desk. Its ideals proclaim that "all men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and that governments are "instituted" only “to secure” these pre-existing rights—not to grant or revoke them.

Honoring the dignity of immigrants, including those without legal status, is an act of resistance, an attempt to reclaim humanity from a restrictive, legally imposed form.

If appellate courts overturn Dugan's conviction, they will keep open a small, vital space where the law can still be forced, by both judges and movements, to acknowledge a humanity it did not create and has no legitimate authority to erase.

Terry Hansen is a retired educator who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

TAGS: US immigration system is outdated, Milwaukee County judge convicted of felony obstruction, people are only human if they have legal status, the law dehumanizes people who don't belong

Viewpoint |
Women in authority roles exposes male mediocrity

Who keeps moving the finish line whenever a woman take over a leadership position in work or politics?

by Yumna Zahid Ali, Guest Commentator

Who told you leadership has a gender? Who decided authority sounds masculine and strength must wear a man’s face? Who keeps moving the finish line every time a woman reaches it? And why, in the 21st century, are we still pretending this debate isn’t already settled? Because, honestly, this argument itself is tired, dusty, and intellectually embarrassing. The idea that women are “born followers” is not an opinion. It is a confession. Yes! A confession of insecurity, nostalgia for unearned authority, and fear that their own mediocrity will be exposed.

So, let me be clear, once and for all: Women are leaders. Not potential leaders. Not emerging leaders. Not leaders “despite” being women. Leaders. Period. And anyone still arguing otherwise is not protecting tradition…they’re protecting their own comfortable delusion.

It’s unbelievable how men have been failing upward for centuries, but somehow, women are the risky choice? All of which exposes the double standard: a man forgets half the plan: he’s “visionary.” A woman delivers the entire plan: she’s “bossy.” A man yells: he’s passionate. A woman raises her voice: she needs to “calm down.” A man leads with ego: a strong leader. A woman leads with results: threatening.

Interesting math!

The world loves to say women are “too emotional” to lead, while history is basically a very long, very embarrassing highlight reel of male tantrums with catastrophic consequences. Wars started over bruised egos, chest-thumping pride, and leaders who mistook dominance for wisdom. Empires burned because someone could not handle being challenged, corrected, or told no. Borders were redrawn because a man felt entitled to land, power, or legacy. Millions died not because solutions were unavailable, but because compromise bruised male pride. Entire populations were sacrificed to prove strength, authority, and superiority.

Don't believe me? The evidence is written across the cities themselves: Warsaw, Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol, Kyiv, Baghdad, Gaza City, and countless more.

The status quo consumes women’s labor but panics at women’s authority. It adores women as supporting characters, housekeepers, emotional sponges, therapists, sacrificial lambs, anything but decision-makers. Because a woman with power isn’t inspirational; she’s inconvenient.

Women who actually lead are called cold, unlikable, and arrogant. Interesting how male leaders with the same traits are called focused, commanding, and confident. Apparently, likability is a mandatory tax only if you are not supposed to have power.

Say it with me: Women are leaders. Not someday. Not maybe. Not if approved.

They always have been.

The only difference now? They’re done explaining it to people who were never even qualified to question it in the first place.

About the author ~

TAGS: women have always been leaders, why are men so afraid of women in leadership roles, why are women a risky choice for governing, Women born flollowers, male insecurity challenged

Viewpoint |
AI vs Natural Intelligence…. and the Winner Is?

Viewpoint |
Trump's racism can no longer be tolerated

Viewpoint |
Treating parents as sacred: A moral foundation worth preserving

Viewpoint |
When history is denied, democracy is put on trial

Viewpoint |
How ICE raids on homes violates the constitutional rights

Viewpoint |
Trump's costly deportation policy producing unwhelming results

Viewpoint |
October 7

Guest Commentary |
In times of conflict, focus on faith, community, and daily life

Viewpoint |
The GOP’s break with its conservative past

Viewpoint |
Milwaukee judge faces prison time in a case of judicial humanity

Viewpoint |
Women in authority roles exposes male mediocrity

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Editor's Choice

Spartans mark decade since historic 2016 basketball championship

On This Day

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Editor's Choice

On This Day

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year